The controversy surrounding the two species commonly known asS. sarrachoidesandS. nitidibaccatumand the problems associated with their typification are discussed. Their hybridization behaviour indicates that two morphogenetically distinct entities are involved, and suggests that these should be recognized at specific rank. The taxon with the fully accrescent mature calyces generally conforms to the species described by Sendtner in 1846 asS. sarrachoides, but the description of a glandular‐haired species with half‐accrescent fruiting calyces by Rusby in 1896 necessitates the acceptance ofS. physalifoliumas the correct name for this taxon. Within this latter species two varieties are recognized, the relatively rare var.physalifoliumwhich has a restricted S American distribution, and the more common var.nitidibaccatum, which, though native to S America, is becoming a successful adventive in Europe, N America, Australia and New Zealand. This variety is based on Bitter's speciesS. nitidibaccatum, and necessitates a new combination. All three taxa are illustrated, details of their morphological variation, their geographical distribution, and relevant synonyms are given, and related species are discus